. that permission was revoked by the obama administration even that was granted by the bush administration previously. everybody wants to get sources of energy in their states for not only to be able to get the jobs of getting it out, but attract criminal and manufacturing companies with low prices. so this is the choice we will have before us and to meet sees clearly the the way to go. i'd like to thank all of you for listening and i'd be very happy to take any questions. [applause] >> thanks, dana. if i could just start off with one question. among the natural gas reserves are natural gas reserves in the state, upstate new york. if by some fluke you had governor cuomo regarding potential for hater fracturing in the decision he is facing, what might you say to him? >> i would certainly say to look at the example of pennsylvania, which has created many, many jobs and is doing well and that job and they have an experienced environmental problems. it seems obvious that haida refracting is the way to go and governor cuomo is free to set whatever regulations he wants around that to ensure the

decade i see the debt run up under the bush administration is a comparable amount under the obama administration. this seems to me to be a legacy of an extraordinary amount of. [inaudible] and yet we have a lot of economic problems and now our sovereign debt is roughly around gdp and this is the point in which at least in europe, investors have begun questioning it so i am curious in what way future funding would be posed as a solution to problems that the past was not and how can it be financed? >> sorry, i don't buy the premise first of all. [applause] look, we had a stimulus bill, which was about $800 billion. that is a very small part of the debt we have and none of the results of an economic stimulus so where's this coming from? the rest of it is, we have a large amount of debt or a large amount of -- we ran a deficit even during the good years which people like myself don't think was a good idea. why? because we first wanted to give tax cuts to langsam individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do is pump grinding and then we had a collapse of revenu

administration, a roughly comparable amount under the obama administration. this 10 dribble seems seems to a leg say leg say -- and -- this is the point at which, at least in europe, investors have begun to question the capacity of the country to repay the debt. so i'm curious in what way future funding would be -- would be posted as a solution to problems that the pacifism past -- past pump fining was not and how can it be financed. >> i don't buy the premise, first of all. look, we had a stimulus bill which was about 800 billion. that a very small part of the debt we have. none of it was a result of the economic stimulus. so where is this coming from? the rest of it is we have large amount of debt that was -- a large opt -- we ran deficits even during good years, which even people like myself don't think is a good idea. why? because george bush wanted to give tax cuts to high income individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do with pump priming. the enwe had a collapse of revenue that took place after 2007, which is the result of a severe downturn and financial crisis

Excerpts 0 to 2 of about 3 results.